Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Engine makers tout “Plan A” but have “Plan B” backups in R&D June 23, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 27. June 20, 2025
- Pontifications: A Personal Note June 19, 2025
- Airbus books 142 firm orders as Boeing retracts from the Paris Air Show June 19, 2025
- AIN Media Group Agrees to Acquire Leeham News & Analysis June 17, 2025
Odds and Ends: SPEEA says strike is likely; CFM LEAP update
SPEEA v Boeing: The Seattle Times reported that there is a very high chance of a strike by SPEEA against Boeing come February. This is, of course, bad news for all concerned.
SPEEA is already talking about a 60 day strike and says this would cost Boeing $400m a day. In 2000, when SPEEA struck for 60 days, Boeing deivered 50 fewer aircraft for the year. IAM 751’s 57 day strike in 2009 depressed sales and cost Boeing billions (though nothing like the $400m SPEEA forecasts, which is a puzzle).
Customers, who were ticked off by the IAM strike, will once again be the innocent bystanders in this potential strike. A strike will also redouble Boeing’s drive to diversify to non-union states, though hopefully this time it won’t be so stupid as to connect the dots again as it did with the 751. It’s our belief Boeing can’t fulfill the demand for engineers in Washington State anyway so it has to locate work elsewhere. Although as a Washington State resident we don’t want to see this happen, this is, we believe, reality.
SPEEA has the power to truly disrupt things at Boeing, not only for deliveries but also for future engineering projects, but nobody will win and everybody will lose if Boeing and SPEEA don’t reach an agreement.
CFM LEAP Update: The Seattle Times also has this update on the CFM LEAP-1B, the version for the Boeing 737 MAX.
Noteworthy in the article is the revelation of the contractual commitment for CFM to reduce fuel burn for the LEAP-1B by 15% compared with today’s 737 CFM engine. This is a key piece of information and well beyond the Airbus assumption in the continuing war of words between the two companies.
It also is key to Boeing’s previously advertised target of the 737 MAX being 13% better than today’s 737NG. What strikes us, however, is whether 13% is still an operative figure.
All other things being equal, installation typically costs 1%-2%, which means the MAX on engine installation alone should be 13%-14% better than the NG. We know that Boeing is working hard on airframe improvements. Shouldn’t the 13% actually be better? We know the advanced winglets are supposed to add 1.5% to fuel reduction, for example. Boeing has also cleaned up the tailcone and undertaken other aerodynamic improvements.
We’ve asked Boeing and will post its response when received.
Update, 2pm PST: We have an answer of sorts from Boeing, though we’ve asked for further clarification.
“CFM’s number is in SFC or specific fuel consumption for a given thrust which when you apply it to a specific mission gives you the fuel-burn reduction for that trip. The attached shows a 500-nmi trip comparison which gives the MAX engine 14% fuel-burn reduction compared to the NG engine, next we factor in engine integration and aero improvements ending up with a total 13% reduction for a 500-nmi trip compared to the NG).
“You will see in the chart that we credit the AT winglet with approximately 1 percent improvement (again this is at a 500-nmi trip). However, at longer ranges customers will experience even more improvement from the AT winglets, up to 1.5%.”
This chart (click to enlarge) is extracted from Boeing’s Farnborough presentation. It starts with a 14% improvement for the engine, while the news article says 15% is required in the CFM contract. The Boeing spokesperson said this is for a 500nm mission at a “specific thrust” level. We’re trying to clarify the difference between the 15% contract number and the 14% above. If we get this clarity, we’ll update again.
Update, 545pm PST: Here’s the final answer from Boeing:
“CFM’s number is in pure SFC and our numbers are in fuel-burn per trip so they are not equivalent. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. In our case – we are using a 500-nmi trip which is our standard comparison. This includes then in our calculations the fuel-burn cost of lifting the airplane empty weight off the ground since takeoff is part of the trip. CFM’s number is an engine in a test stand compared to another engine in a test stand so the two comparisons are not equivalent.”
Meanwhile…
Not revealed in the article but we learned that there will be a thrust bump for the LEAP engine. Right now CFM lists on its website the LEAP-1B thrust at a maximum of 28,000 lbs, the same as the current engine. Because of the higher weights for the MAX, runway performance has been assessed as poorer than the NG by customers we’ve talked with. A thrust bump, and airframe improvements, are aimed at fixing this issue, we’re told.
Mystery Photo #5
The PBY and the Accountant were too easy. Even the Boeing B&W was quickly identified. How about this one? Think very broadly.
Sunday: I flim-flammed you, though CBL was close:
This car is in the LeMay Museum in Tacoma, WA.
Airbus v Boeing: another round of what the customers tell us
With the recent spat upping the media war between Airbus and Boeing over whose airplanes offer better economics, we’ve been once more asking customers what their analyses conclude.
Nothing has changed from our earlier conversations.
As recent media and advertising wars relate, Boeing claims the 737-8 MAX is 8% better on a per-seat basis than the A320neo. Airbus claims its aircraft is 3.3% better than the MAX-8. The differences come in the assumptions of fuel burn, with Airbus claiming the neo will save more fuel than the MAX. Boeing claims the MAX, being lighter, will match the fuel savings and with 12 more seats, this is how Boeing comes up with the 8% figure.
Boeing also claims the 737’s maintenance costs are 24%-27% better than the A320, a figure which drives Airbus officials right up the wall as ludicrous. (We’ve written several times why we dismiss the validity of the Boeing claim as relying on old data on the one hand and data that can be manipulated on the other.)
In the last 10 days we have had conversations once more with customers and potential customers who have analyzed data from Airbus and Boeing and reached their own conclusions. These are additional customers to those we’ve talked with previously, thus adding to the list and data points.
The conclusions are the same:
- The A320neo and the 737-8 MAX are about equal in economics, with Boeing retaining a slight edge on a per-seat basis, but nothing like the 8% it claims. Boeing’s maintenance claims are laughed off. Commercial terms therefore become the deciding factor.
- The A321neo has the advantage over the 737-9 MAX, in part for the same reason the 8 MAX has the advantage: the neo has more seats than the MAX.
- The A321neo is a closer replacement for the Boeing 757 than the 9 MAX, although neither is a true replacement.
SPEEA, Boeing suspend talks at Mediator’s request
Boeing and its engineers’ union, SPEEA, suspended talks Dec. 4 until after the first of the year at the request of the federal Mediator.
Boeing and SPEEA issued terse statements citing the Mediator but adding no comment of their own:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director George H. Cohen issued the following statement today on the ongoing labor negotiations between the Boeing Company and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace:
“At the request of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, negotiations between The Boeing Company and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001 are being suspended until after the first of the year. Both sides agreed to this mediator request.”
“In the interim, the FMCS will be in discussion with the parties to schedule resumption of negotiations.”
EADS Investors Day–Analysts reports
EADS held an investors Day this week; here are takes from two who attended.
Airbus presentations may be found here.
Bernstein
EADS is holding its annual Global Investor Forum. We describe key themes from Day 1, which focused on EADS overall and Airbus. A key message we took away was that EADS is headed toward governance changes that should make it a more normal company.
We now expect reduced government involvement with independent directors becoming the majority on the board. The free float is planned to rise from 49% to 70%. Although the sale of shares may depress the stock in the near term, long term it is positive.
Margin upside remains the key value driver for EADS, with higher margins likely on A320 and A330 from cost reduction and pricing. A380 performance appears to be improving. We see the main risk as the A350 production ramp in H2 2013.
First flyable Airbus 350 rolls out of the factory. Airbus photo.
Wells Fargo
Summary. We attended the EADS Global Investor Forum in the UK. Given that Airbus is the primary competitor to Boeing in manufacturing large commercial aircraft, its outlook is important to the suppliers in our coverage universe. Overall, we believe the key highlights of the forum on day 1 were 1) demand for airplanes remains strong as Airbus now says 2014 is overbooked for A320 2) the A350 and A320neo developments remain on track 3) Airbus has about 300 A320 current engine option airplane slots to sell in 2016-2017 that could see some pricing pressure and 4) Airbus is intently focused on reducing its costs which could lead to some pricing pressure for suppliers. In particular, Airbus highlighted Spirit Aerosystems as a supplier that has been challenged on the A350. For the suppliers in our coverage universe, we believe the positive commentary on a stronger 2014 and the order backlog should give investors increased confidence in Boeing and Airbus production ramp ups despite recent economic weakness. In addition, while Airbus has focused on reducing costs, we believe pricing pressure has been continuous for the suppliers in our coverage universe and do not expect substantial changes in the profitability of work for Airbus. We continue to be positive on the commercial aerospace suppliers based on the OEM upturn.
A350XWB. Airbus confirmed its schedule on the aircraft with first flight in mid-2013 and entry into service in H2 2014. We do not know how many aircraft Airbus plans to deliver in 2014, but the company did say that one of its two launch customers, Singapore Airlines, has shifted its planned aircraft deliveries into 2015 leaving only Cathay Pacific to receive the aircraft in 2014.
A320neo. Airbus continues to highlight its re-engined narrow body A320neo as superior to Boeing’s 737MAX. The company believes that its larger fan size allows total cash operating costs to be 3.3% better than the 737MAX. Boeing of course calculates different economics and can show its offering is superior to the A320neo. Airbus said it has about 300 open delivery slots for the current generation A320 aircraft before production transitions to the A320neo in 2017. Not surprisingly, most of these appear to be at the end of A320ceo production in 2016-2017. The company said that its 2013 and 2014 delivery slots are now fully booked (and 2015 is nearly so), an improvement from the company’s Q3 earnings conference call when there were still 2014 delivery slots available.
Backlog Growth in 2013. Airbus has about 7.5 years worth of production at planned rates (similar to Boeing’s production in backlog). Management thinks this long backlog has reduced the cyclicality of the airplane manufacturing business since 2004. On the other hand, Boeing has said it desires to reduce its backlog such that it can deliver airplanes on a more timely basis to customers.
Focus On Cost Reduction Could Mean Pricing Pressures For Suppliers. Airbus is targeting a 10% EBIT margin by 2015 (excluding A350 losses and the impact of a weaker Euro) and is aggressively looking to take out costs. As part of its cost reduction efforts, Airbus will have reorganized its plant management process beginning in January 2013. The new structure empowers plant managers with increased authority to manage production problems. At the same time, Airbus has implemented a single procurement organization to more effectively and efficiently manage the costs of the supply chain.
Airbus’ A330 improvements aimed at maintaining market position vs 787
Airbus last week announced additional gross weight upgrades and improvements to the A330-200/300 that increase range and reduce fuel burn. Aviation Week has this story about the enhancements.
This is the latest in a series of improvements taking advantage of the four year delay in the Boeing 787 program that Airbus believes will enable the airplane, which first entered service in 1994, to remain viable well into the 2020 decade.
Boeing launched the 787 in December 2003 and promptly claimed the aircraft would kill the A330. Had the aircraft entered service in May 2008 as originally planned, Boeing might have been able to make strides to do so. But delays allowed Airbus time to incorporate several Performance Improvement Packages (PIPs). The European company has sold more A330s post-787 launch than it did before.
The latest improvements give the A330-300 an anticipated range of more than 6,000nm, compared with less than 4,000nm when the airplane entered service.
Boeing, SPEEA talks take a turn for the worse
Labor contract negotiations between Boeing and SPEEA took a turn for the worse (and things were bad already) when Boeing asked for federal mediation.
If this request is granted, SPEEA won’t be able to strike while mediation is in process. Only after an impasse was declared by the Mediator, could SPEEA walk out (or conversely, Boeing could lock out the union).
If mediation is granted, Boeing buys an indefinite time during which aircraft deliveries was proceed more or less uninterrupted.
Update, 530 PST: Well, it seems our long history in the airline business got the better of us. In 20 years we never saw a strike happen until an impasse was declared in a mediation. As Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler famously said, the statement above is “inoperative.”
SPEEA is already engaging in job action, refusing voluntary overtime and working to the rules. Look for this to expand.
The last time SPEEA struck for an extended period—40 days in 2000—Boeing deliveries for the year dropped by 50.
Negotiations update, Nov. 29, 2012
Boeing proposes mediation in SPEEA negotiations
Today, the company responded to SPEEA’s counter proposal regarding wage increases, the Voluntary Investment Plan and the BCERP basic benefit. Because the differences between the parties are still significant, and this was clearly reinforced during today’s conversation, the company proposed that a federal mediator meet with the Boeing and SPEEA teams. We hope the expertise of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service can help move the two sides toward a resolution.
During today’s session, we explained the salary increase pools proposed by SPEEA for both the professional and technical units of 6 percent a year for three years would move the salaries of our employees above the Puget Sound market. We also pointed out that SPEEA’s proposal to allocate two-thirds of the salary pool to all engineers and techs significantly slows the salary growth of top performing engineers and techs.
We explained that our Voluntary Investment Plan company match of 75 percent of the first 8 percent employees contribute is already market leading when compared with our aerospace peer companies. SPEEA proposed a company match of 75 percent of the first 10 percent.
Finally, we explained that the company’s proposal to increase the BCERP basic benefit each year over a four year contract to $85, $87, $89 and $91 keeps the plan market leading. SPEEA proposed to increase the basic benefit each year over a three year contract to $87, $93 and $99. The vast majority of SPEEA-represented employees retire under the pay-based benefit which will continue to go up with pay increases, including EIP, and will make an already market-leading plan even better.
The intent of our proposal is to improve upon a total compensation package that already leads the market. The question is — how far can the package exceed the market while we remain competitive as a business for the long term.
We encourage you to log on to the negotiations website to see regular updates where you’ll also find the Pay & Benefits Estimator. The Estimator shows how the company’s offer will affect you personally.
And the SPEEA message: